When I read Jackson Hole Airport Board President Jerry Blann’s Guest Column in last week’s News&Guide, it was clear that on April 24 the board would vote to permit Wind River Aviation to base its operation at the airport, which is located inside Grand Teton National Park. Essentially he was telling the community the board could do nothing due to Federal Aviation Administration regulations.

It struck me as a bit ironic. Mr. Blann and perhaps others on the board and some who previously served on it certainly never had a problem vigorously challenging various federal agencies and members of Congress when they had individually disagreed with federal regulations or Congressional actions.

The FAA, like any federal agency, is not omnipotent. It can be challenged for good cause. Why is this board, which has heard overwhelming opposition to allowing a scenic heli-tour operation to be based at the airport, so unwilling to challenge the FAA and to work with the Wyoming congressional delegation to either pass legislation or direct the FAA to prohibit heli tours? The board has previously worked proactively with the Wyoming delegation to receive taxpayer-funded FAA grants or other legislation beneficial to the airport.

During the meeting the board repeatedly referenced the FAA grants awarded to the airport. The grants are certainly important, but it is worth remembering those grants are federal taxpayer money, not FAA magic money. We citizens fund those grants. The FAA can and should be questioned and challenged. I hope the Wyoming congressional delegation will do just that.

And while the airport staff and board may have attempted in different ways to provide the public with opportunities to participate in the public process, the information to the public was at best confusing and difficult to find. The airport press release went so far as to suggest the board’s preferred method to receive public comment. That is not an acceptable way to conduct public participation and has biased the entire public process.

The airport board and staff have expressed their surprise at how many letters and public responses they received, more than any issue the airport has engaged in. That should have alerted them to the need to facilitate the clearest set of public messages about what the airport board was considering and what authorities the board has to approve, deny or regulate the heli-tour permit.

Instead, it wasn’t until the early portion of Friday’s board meeting when Mike Morgan, the airport’s legal counsel, read the limits and outlined the authorities of the airport board. All of that information should have been clearly presented to the public before beginning the public participation process weeks ago.

So from a standpoint of a meaningful public information campaign and ensuing public process, this was a failure and an insult to the community. The board may have potentially left itself open to legal challenges for stymieing public comment by individuals.

That was made doubly worse since airport board ignored the pleas of the community, including from local elected officials, to postpone Friday’s meeting until people could attend in person and offer their own comments after the COVID-19 emergency lessened.

A further shocking revelation came before Friday’s board meeting began when Mr. Blann asked Mr. Chambers if he had read the public comments and Mr. Chambers said yes. Why was the heli-tour applicant given the opportunity to read the public comments and yet the airport did not post those comments on its website for all of the public to read as well? And why isn’t the application for the heli-tour on the airport website? Transparency of all relevant information is critical in any public participation process.

At the start of the meeting the board gave local elected officials an opportunity to comment, along with a few comments from Mr. Chambers. That was followed by 6 1/2 hours of a rotation of airport staff reading, in a mind-numbing manner, the hundreds of public comments, while keeping the public waiting until 2:30 p.m. to finally be allowed to offer live comments via WebEx audio, limited to just two minutes per person.

Another irony: The airport promotes its carbon offset program throughout its website and on other platforms. I applaud those efforts, but it is incongruous to tout the carbon offset program while being unwilling to deny the heli-tours a base at Jackson Hole Airport. Heli-tours are an intense consumer of fossil fuels and will cancel out any progress on carbon offsets and other environmentally responsible airport initiatives.

As to learning important safety lessons: Before the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010, federal regulatory agencies deemed the BP drilling operation “safe,” just as the FAA deems the Wind River Aviation R44 helicopter “safe.” I was dispatched to Louisiana as part of the Deepwater Horizon response for the Interior Department and saw firsthand and in real time the tragedy unfold. A tragedy that with the benefit of hindsight and the subsequent investigation could have been prevented.

Do we need Wind River Aviation’s R44 helicopter to have a tragedy before its safety record is reevaluated and better regulated by the FAA?

If Wind River’s R44 has a crash, people will likely die and the risk of an uncontrolled wildfire is great. There may be no emergency responders or firefighters available to respond. The firefighting community throughout the country is gravely concerned about the 2020 wildland fire season, made more dangerous due to COVID-19.

Mr. Chambers knows the community overwhelmingly opposes his heli-tour operation. Yet despite that, he moves forward with total disregard for this community located at the heart of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, amid two iconic national parks and a national forest that collectively generate billions of dollars annually for the Wyoming economy.

Together this community can still stop these dangerous and obtrusive heli-tours. Hundreds intend to work to see heli-tours prohibited at Jackson Hole Airport.

Stay tuned.

Jackson Hole resident Joan Anzelmo is a former communications professional for the National Park Service. Guest Shots are solely the opinion of their authors.

(5) comments

Tim Rieser

It’s important to remember that the applicant has rights and has me the burden. This is no longer a story with any relevance. I welcome him to the community.

Tim Rieser

This is no longer a relevant story. The company is entitled to open this business as permitted by law. The valley has too many noisy entitled people who believe that just because they don’t want something then it shouldn’t happen that way. That’s not how America works.

I welcome this entrepreneur to our community and apologize for the nasty reception he is getting.

Tim Rieser

Certain aspects of our population seem to be willfully dense. But then we are in a national period of willful refusal to understand the facts. The law and statutes permit this business to operate. That’s how it works. All the hurt feelings and alligator tears in the community don’t dictate laws. What I find incredible is that none of the opponents seems to care that there are 30,000 annual flights at the airport, or the thousands of hours the resort uses a helicopter, of the excessive amounts of fireworks that pollute and terrify the wildlife. No problem there. But a single little heli tour company gets this attention. It hypocritical and anti-American, frankly, to continue this absurd opposition. I welcome this man to our community. I wish him good fortune and I personally apologize for the whiney extremists among us who seek to subvert our laws to satisfy their own whims. In fact, I’d like to be his first paying client.

Henry Fowler

Thank you for this. Very well said, and very plain to see for those who watched this closely. In the end the process seemed manipulative, and the decision itself was carefully depicted as a totally binary choice - go along with this or face utter ruin to air commerce as we know it. That depiction did not come off as being so plausible on a matter of this magnitude. If it really was, perhaps a second or even third legal opinion would have been a constructive start in demonstrating that all possible options to prevent this had actually been very fully explored.

Roy Garton

[whistling] What you do not seem to understand is what purpose is the fight? While your points are well taken, the FAA granted him a permit to fly and operate. The Airport is governed by the FAA and the Park Service. IF both say OK, and the Airport says you can't operate, he simply goes to the FAA. Now to play "Devil's Advocate" on your side. I remember years back when Floyd Keristead (possible typo on his last name) operated at the "Y" with his chopper doing tours. He had his own fuel truck, base, ticket counter, everything there. I do not understand why this guy can not do something similar and still be profitable. Why he has to base at the airport is beyond my critical thinking level I guess.

Welcome to the discussion.

Please note: Online comments may also run in our print publications.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Please turn off your CAPS LOCK.
No personal attacks. Discuss issues & opinions rather than denigrating someone with an opposing view.
No political attacks. Refrain from using negative slang when identifying political parties.
Be truthful. Don’t knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the “Report” link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with us. We’d love to hear eyewitness accounts or history behind an article.
Use your real name: Anonymous commenting is not allowed.